Bitcoin

 Cybercurrencies are here to stay.  Maybe Bitcoin is too, but not at the levels it currently holds.  Tulips are still here, but the tulip mania of the 1630s has passed.  Bitcoin was originally intended to be a medium of exchange that would be insulated from almost all external control.  This anonymity made it an excellent means of exchange for illegal activities, most recently illustrated by the fact that most of the ransomware attacks on private data have demanded payment in Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin transactions are recorded by blockchain, which is like an old accounting ledger.  It contains every Bitcoin transaction, although looking at blockchain from the outside, you can tell that a transaction is verified, but you cannot tell who the parties were or how much Bitcoin was involved.  As one of the parties to the transaction, however, you can pull out the specific information.  So, if Elon Musk for example says you never paid him for your Tesla, you can prove that you did using blockchain. 

The Economist magazine recently explored what would happen to the financial markets if Bitcoin went to zero.  It illustrates how far Bitcoin has come from mainly being a payment mechanism for drug dealers and other criminals to store of value rivaling gold bullion.  Many old school financial institutions -- banks, hedge funds, and payment systems like PayPal -- have begun to invest in and accept Bitcoin.  The Economist speculates that a Bitcoin crash would also crash the broader financial markets, and the more widely accepted Bitcoin becomes, the bigger the crash would be.  Because there is so much speculation today in Bitcoin, much of the investment is leveraged, likely leading to margin calls and liquidations in the event of a Bitcoin crash. 

The Economist says that “because changing dollars for bitcoin is slow and costly, traders wanting to realize gains and reinvest proceeds often transact in stablecoins” pegged to the dollar, like Tether.  The fact that traders think Bitcoin transactions are slow and costly is ironic, since Bitcoin was conceived as a payment mechanism.  But the reliance on Tether and other stablecoins creates problems for these currencies, which are somewhat like money market funds that are vulnerable if they are insufficiently backed, which many regulators believe they are. 

It is ironic that as Bitcoin has become seen as a store of value, it has become less used as a transaction mechanism, which was its original purpose.  But many Bitcoin proponents tout Bitcoin as a way for the poor, unbanked people around the world to participate in the financial system with their wealthier cohorts. 

Because of that prospect of some kind of cybercoin becoming a worldwide medium of exchange, central banks around the world, like the US Federal Reserve, are looking a creating cybercurrencies that would not have some of the negative aspects of Bitcoin.  If cybercurrencies become widespread, will that take some of the luster off of Bitcoin. 

Bitcoins will always represent the massive amounts of energy that were required to produce them.  This unenvironmental aspect of Bitcoin is supposedly what make Elon Musk change his mind and refuse to accept Bitcoins for Teslas.  If Bitcoin were to go to zero, that would be an awful lot of wasted energy and greenhouse gases. 

Bitcoin will have to find its long-term value.  When it was first being mined, it was worth a few thousand dollars.  I would guess that in the long term, it will return to something like that, less than $10,000 per Bitcoin.  It will retain some value as a medium of exchange for criminals, since national cybercurrencies will be more traceable.  Also, national central banks will probably be able to print their new cybercurrencies like the Fed now prints paper dollars, making the new currencies less valuable as a hedge against inflation. 

Anne Applebaum on Mike Lindell

I was disappointed by this Atlantic Magazine article by Anne Applebaum about Mike Lindell, the “My Pillow” guy.  The title says, “The MyPillow Guy Really Could Destroy Democracy,” and the subtitle says, “In the time I spent with Mike Lindell, I came to learn that he is affable, devout, philanthropic – and a clear threat to the nation.” 

After reading the article, I failed to see the threat he presents. Presumably, this is the threat that Democrats see everywhere: Trump’s attempt to undo the last election and reinstate himself as President. I don’t see this a likely to happen and I am thus not alarmed by it.

Apparently, Lindell has something called “packet captures,” which are some kind of computer data proving that the Chinese stole the last election from Trump. But her article never makes clear what these packet captures are, or how the Chinese altered electoral results. I do not believe that there is anything to this. Perhaps, if you thought it would prove that Trump won the election, then it would throw the country into turmoil, but it would not be a threat to democracy. It would mean that Biden’s fake election was a threat to democracy, and that Trump was honestly re-elected and thus democracy would require that he be reinstated.

I do think Trump personally is a threat to democracy. The icing on the cake was the January 6 invasion of the Capitol, but in general Trump was a terrible President who surrounded himself with third-rate people, unable to carry out business of government. I don’t think Lindell is going to reinstate Trump.

The rest of Applebaum’s article supports her characterization of Lindell as a basically nice guy who is wacky on some subjects. I do not think her examples of other wacky businessmen who supported questionable causes are comparable to Lindell. I don’t really know anything about Aschberg, but I doubt that he was responsible for the success of Lenin’s Russian revolution. And Henry Ford is not single-handedly responsible for anti-Semitism, which is probably thousands of years old. Mike Lindell may stir up the waters a little, but he is not going to bring about a sea change in politics.

World Heritage Convention

This Economist article on World Heritage sites in Africa misses a distinction between the US and the European approach to the World Heritage Convention.  When I was on the US delegation to the World Heritage Convention annual committee meeting many years ago, I learned that over the years, the US has favored designating natural sites as additions to the World Heritage List, while the Europeans have favored adding manmade cultural and historical sites to the List. 

This preference for natural sites may date back to the US accession to the World Heritage Convention in 1973, when Richard Nixon was President.  I don’t think of Nixon as an environmental President, but he created the Environmental Protection Agency as well as joining the World Heritage Convention.  His supporters included many rich businessmen, whose environmental interests generally run toward preserving nature as it is.  I think of the Nature Conservancy as the kind of environmental organization rich people would support, as opposed to Greenpeace, for example.  Both of these organizations are genuinely interested in preserving the environment, but they go about it in different ways.  A Congressional Research Service report on the Convention was prepared in 2011, giving a lot of background on the US participation. 

There is an additional reason for the lack of African World Heritage sites described in the Economist article.  The Convention requires that countries where sites are located must take care of them.  Many African countries with wonderful natural sites do not have the resources to preserve them.  We are all familiar with the damage done by elephant poaching over the years, for example, even though elephant habitat is in some of the more advanced African countries.  On the protection issue there is a division between the overseers.  I come down on the side of those who support naming a worthwhile site even if there is some doubt about whether the host country can care for it properly.  Others will only support a new site if they are confident the country can care for it.  I think designating a site at least gives the Convention the ability to pressure and cajole the host country to preserve the site.  Otherwise, development or poaching is almost sure to lead to its destruction. 

Infrastructure

A major problem with the infrastructure bill, aside from its cost, is its lack of focus.  The Democrats have tried to include everything but the kitchen sink. The Republicans have tried to exclude non-traditional items from infrastructure bill, such as childcare. Nevertheless, the bill contains a hodge-podge of projects from roads and bridges to broadband internet connection.  The main goal seems to be pushing a lot of money out the door, rather than funding specific projects.  This will lead to a lot of waste, fraud, and mismanagement.  Since there are no priorities, politicians will fund pet projects and projects pushed by favored constituents, rather than projects that are most needed to keep America running. 

Much of Biden’s and the Democrats’ agenda seems to be giving blacks reparations payments without calling them that.  The previous stimulus bills and the proposed infrastructure bill will undertake a massive transfer of assets from white people to black and brown people, both in terms of jobs that will employ mainly black and brown people and in terms of the beneficiaries of the projects, e.g., the main beneficiaries of improved broadband internet will be poorer black and brown people.  Better internet is a priority, but we should recognize that there is a second agenda here.  Similarly, the Democrats will try to get more roads and bridges built in poorer parts of town.  That’s not bad, but it may not be what America needs to best improve its transportation system.  Of course, the non-traditional infrastructure proposals err even more in the direction of wasted money.  There will be some short-term benefit to spending money on warm and fuzzy things like childcare, but it will not provide the same benefit to the nation as repairing roads and bridges. 

I would prefer to see narrowly focused bills, e.g., a bill to replace bridges that have fallen into a certain state of disrepair that makes this dangerous to use.  A bill to repair airports that have become unsafe.  A bill specifically targeting broadband internet.  These bills could provide specific benchmarks to decide whether the programs were succeeding or not.  Otherwise, there will be lots of handwaving and celebrating all the money that got spent without evaluating whether we got our money’s worth. 

Finally, I am not sure that this is the time to do infrastructure for infrastructure’s sake, even if it is well planned.  We have just spent trillions on the previous stimulus bills, and we will continue to spend trillions on the theory that debt and deficits no longer matter.  It’s possible that there has been some change in the world financial situation that makes the national debt meaningless.  But it’s also possible that this is a temporary situation and someday interest rates may go back up and future generations will be faced with insurmountable debt, with will limit their future and leave them cursing this “me” generation that spent all its money on itself.

In the last few days, it looks like China has begun to take a more conservative approach to its financial wellbeing, limiting financial IPOs and huge expansions of businesses.  This may be political, protecting the power of the Chinese central government, but it could also be financially based, to make sure that the economy does not spin out of control.  Meanwhile, the US seems totally unconcerned about the red-hot financial situation as it pumps tons of money out the door and looks the other way as more and more “unicorns” go public, fed by trillions of investors’ dollars.  Maybe there is no tomorrow, but what if it rains tomorrow?  Will China be in better shape to deal with the rain?  I am afraid it might be.  There seems to be a consensus that there are not storm clouds on the horizon, but what if we are not looking closely enough.  Maybe those few clouds are not as harmless as they look.